SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
An editorial in the Wellesley College student newspaper that called for "shutting down" some forms of hateful rhetoric became the latest flashpoint in a contentious national debate over free speech and its limits on college campuses.
The editorial, published Wednesday in the Wellesley News, argues that the campus community will "not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible."
"Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech," the editorial states. "The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging."
The editorial was widely criticized on social media as antithetical to the free exchange of ideas that is critical in a democracy and in liberal arts education. It comes as colleges across the country are wrestling with how to protect free speech in an era of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and even assaults on incendiary speakers invited to campuses.
Free speech for all. Unless they disagree with us on something...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @12:02PM (15 children)
Christians are against free speech, they don't what to hear in their church what cargo cult people (or muslims) have to say.
---
Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college [wikipedia.org] is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.
So, what's with all this whinging?
It was your choice to allow... nay, encourage and nurture... private (as in "non-socialized") education, why are you so upset with the consequences?
(grin)
(mod me troll and I'll start shouting "censorship!!!", don't say a didn't warn you - large trollish grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday April 17 2017, @12:58PM (2 children)
Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.
Except that there are other rules which also apply. They can't use public funding to do that because then it becomes First Amendment territory. And if they advertise themselves as being free speech territory, then they are beholden to truth in advertising laws. For example, their president has repeatedly stated strong free speech positions [wellesley.edu] like:
Freedom is central to our mission and, more broadly, to liberal arts education. Wellesley supports diverse opinions and the rights of all members of our community to voice their views. Active, open debate enriches and illuminates—it is fundamental to how we create new ways of seeing and thinking.
Robust debate is also critical to the College’s process for addressing challenging issues—disagreement is a necessary part of that process, and something we should welcome rather than fear. The Freedom Project’s invitation to Laura Kipnis, the SAAFE students’ videotaped rebuttal, and the CERE faculty’s statement are all expressions of our commitment to active, open debate.
If after that, they punish people for unpopular "hate" speech, then that's a deceptive advertising practice at the least. It may also be a violation of the contract between the college and the party (if they are a student or faculty member).
Colleges often create restrictions on their ability to censor speech through stuff like this. It's not some private blog where the owner does whatever they want without legal consequence because nobody expects differently or cares. Colleges routinely create a reasonable expectation that free speech is permitted and perhaps even a contractual obligation to honor it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @01:47PM (1 child)
Then it's up to you to show they accepted public funding to carry their day to day educational work.
(public funding used for research does not count - they delivered on a contract. Neither public money used for students tuition - they delivered the agreed level of educational services to those publicly sponsored students)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 18 2017, @04:08AM
Then it's up to you to show they accepted public funding to carry their day to day educational work.
It'd have to be even more specific than that. For example, if they were funding hate speech tribunals with public funding, then that would qualify. And I don't have to show that they were doing that, but rather that it is an exception. After all, the original assertion was universal.
Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.
One merely needs to show an exception can exist.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @03:12PM (1 child)
Likewise, you probably don't want them giving a sermon in your dining room when you're having dinner.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @03:40PM
No, indeed, I don't. And if it is my dining room, I'll ask them to leave if they do try.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:52PM (6 children)
Posting to a news site is not whinging; it is informing alums, other donators, and potential attendees. It is also relevant and newsworthy as schools becoming radicalized towards fascism is an important cultural issue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @05:28PM (5 children)
Please hands up all those SN readers that are an Wellesley College alum, donatorated to the college or considered being an attendee...
Oh, cultural issue, wonderful. Let's follow this cultural path, shall we?
So, would you be so kind to enlighten us on what definition you use for fascism? Many people of culture have tried such a definition [wikipedia.org].
Maybe its the Mussolini's form, the one Roosevelt said "ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"?
Or is the what marxists see it, like "the last attempt of a ruling class (specifically, the capitalist bourgeoisie) to preserve its grip on power in the face of an imminent proletarian revolution"?
Perhaps Orwell's description of "Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes... It is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way.".
No? I give up.
Oh, Mighty Buzz, would you help with the culture level of Wellesley College's "alums, other donators, and potential attendees."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @05:59PM (4 children)
Oh, you're saying we should stop posting NASA stories then because none of us are ever likely to go to space? Get a better argument.
Here you go [dictionary.com], definitions one and three.
Colleges cheered every time Obama issued an executive order in direct violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
Precisely what we are talking about here today.
Big, fat, whopping check mark there. It damned sure ain't the Republicans and Libertarians calling for more regulation.
Aggressive nationalism, check. They're just not particular which nation they're for, as long as it's against the U.S.
Racism, check. You'll find less hatred of and advocation against white men in Compton or Watts.
Yep, most colleges hit every single qualification to be fascists. Students wearing antifa uniforms and inciting/perpetrating violence those who dare to think or speak out of step with the party line is just one of many steps they've taken that all but mirror Germany in the 30s.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Monday April 17 2017, @07:29PM (3 children)
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power
Colleges cheered every time Obama issued an executive order [...]
Yep, most colleges hit every single qualification to be fascists.
You're simply saying that Obama is literally Hitler?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday April 17 2017, @08:15PM (2 children)
Obama isn't Hitler, but he was the evil fuck who set up due process free execution of American citizens based on secret legal memos, and he ran out of bombs in 2016 blowing up countries at which we are not at war. He's no Hitler, but he's no Jesus either.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 17 2017, @09:56PM (1 child)
There's a meme that goes "Obama is literally Hitler." I was wondering whether the original poster was invoking it. Had Mr. Obama literally run out of bombs, that would have set off our Geiger counters.
Certainly he was open about the extrajudicial killings of his own people, but I tend to think that such killings happened before he took office. I can't prove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb#Death [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege [wikipedia.org]
I imagine that it will continue now that he's left office, too.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/03/philippine_president_duterte_says_trump_congratulated_him_on_violent_anti.html [slate.com]
Being able to kill on a whim is immense power. However, these student writers say "[...] questionable claims should be mitigated by education as opposed to personal attacks." The drone killings are personal attacks, are they not? I just don't see the fascist tendencies in the editorial.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:18PM
"The U.S. is running out of bombs to drop on ISIS [^w random people]": http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs-missiles-isis/ [cnn.com]
"America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 17 2017, @06:36PM (2 children)
Two things.
Christians, in general, are not against free speech. They just don't have to host speech they don't like on their platform on their property. That seems reasonable. If I am in a venue with speech I don't like, and not allowed to counter it, then I either leave, or keep silent.
Muslims similarly don't want to hear what Christians (or Jews) have to say. In some countries Christians are beaten and / or imprisoned for their message contrary to the religion imposed within that country. I'm glad the US isn't like that (yet).
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @09:06PM (1 child)
Do you own any piece of property on Wellesley College?
If now, why should you feel entitled to teach them how to behave?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @09:51PM
If now, why should you feel entitled to teach them how to behave?
Because we also have freedom of speech, and can therefore criticize their actions. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you're right in doing it. I'm tired of the 'But it's private property!!!' defense of censorship, because most of the time it's just a huge straw man.